Plaintiff
Daniel Robert Hamilton, an inmate in Menard Correctional
Center, brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
First Amended Complaint[1] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
which provides:

(a) Screening - The court shall review,
before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as
practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity.

(b) Grounds for Dismissal - On review, the
court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or

(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.

As is
explained in greater detail below, Plaintiff's complaint
violates the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. For this reason, the complaint shall be
dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.

The
First Amended Complaint

The
allegations in the First Amended Complaint are rambling and
often incoherent. Although it is far from clear, it appears
Plaintiff is attempting to assert one or more claims relating
to the loss of good conduct credit and/or inmate privileges
based upon one or more false disciplinary reports written by
defendants Richard Pharrell and/or Ryan Basten. Specifically,
in the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff repeatedly
references a “4th bad false report.” At times,
the “4th bad false report” appears to reference a
disciplinary report written by Basten on June 28,
2016.[2] But the “4th bad false report”
is also linked to a report written by a “bad
corrections officer” on “July 6, 2016, the summer
of this 21st century.” After reviewing the 118 pages of
exhibits attached to the First Amended Complaint, the Court
was able to locate a record of disciplinary proceedings
related to a disciplinary report lodged by an Officer Richard
Ferrell on July 6, 2016. The Court can only surmise
that Plaintiff's allegations regarding Richard
Pharrell[3]relate to Officer Richard
Ferrell's July 6, 2016 disciplinary report, the
subsequent hearing related to the same, and the resultant
loss of good-time credit. (Doc. 8-1, p. 17).

As to
the remaining defendants, the First Amended Complaint is
devoid of specific factual allegations. The allegations
against these defendants are either non-existent or so
minimal that no claims can be extrapolated from them.

Finally,
the First Amended Complaint purports to assert one or more
claims against Pharrell for his “deliberate, evil,
malicious intent to inflict harm or damages” on
Plaintiff. (Doc. 8, p. 7). No specific factual allegations
are tied to Pharrell's alleged wrongful conduct.
Plaintiff merely states that the alleged conduct gives rise
to claims under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth,
Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as claims for
torture, deliberate indifference, conspiracy to violate civil
rights, conspiracy to violate human rights, negligence, and
discrimination of the handicapped. Id.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Rule 8
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint
to provide &ldquo;a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief&rdquo; and
also &ldquo;a demand for the relief sought.&rdquo;
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Additionally, Rule 8(d) requires that each
allegation within the complaint &ldquo;must be simple,
concise, and direct.&rdquo; Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). The
allegations in the complaint must &ldquo;actually suggest
that the plaintiff has a right to relief, by providing
allegations that raise a right to relief above a speculative
level.&rdquo; Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074,
1084 (7th Cir.2008) (emphasis in original). At the ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.